What General Sanchez Said
By Daniel Henninger

Over the past weekend there were front-page accounts everywhere of Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez's description of the war in Iraq as a "nightmare." The New York Times led its story this way:

"In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top commander of American forces there called the Bush administration's handling of the war 'incompetent' and said the result was 'a nightmare with no end in sight.' " Gen. Sanchez said this last Friday to a gathering of reporters and editors in Washington who cover military affairs. It was a dramatic denunciation from the man who led U.S. forces in Iraq from 2003 to 2004.

On Monday my colleague John Fund wrote an item for the Journal editorial page's daily email newsletter, Political Diary, noting that most of the news reports of the speech had failed to note that Gen. Sanchez had also severely criticized the press's performance in Iraq. "For some of you," Gen. Sanchez said to the reporters, "the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas."

By now I was curious to see what Gen. Sanchez actually did say. The full text is an indictment all right, of everyone connected to this war--the president, the press, Congress, the bureaucracy and maybe the country itself.

Gen. Sanchez was running the U.S. war effort in Iraq when the Abu Ghraib scandal blew up, though an investigation absolved him.

It's possible to dismiss some of what he says as over the top or to cavil with the particulars. One cannot really know how extensively Gen. Sanchez's views are shared across the officer corps. But there is a discomfiting, Cassandra-like quality to this speech. It is a scream of rage.

Whatever happens in Iraq, this country at some point will have to think seriously (if possible) about the war's effects on its politics and its institutions. Gen. Sanchez's scream is as good a place as any to start.

With elided excerpts, I'll summarize what he said. Body armor recommended.

• The media. "It seems that as long as you get a front-page story there is little or no regard for the 'collateral damage' you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct. . . . You assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground."

"The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry." "Tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats." And: "The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war."

• The Bush administration. "When a nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win. . . . [This] administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power . . . and they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American people."

• Congress and politics. "Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for power in Washington. . . . National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective, executable, supportable solutions. These partisan struggles have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives."

• The bureaucracies. Gen. Sanchez argues that "unity of effort" was hampered by the absence of any coordinated authority over the war effort of the bureaucracies: "The Administration, Congress and the entire interagency, especially the Department of State, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure."

"Clearly," he says, "mistakes have been made by the American military in its application of power. But even its greatest failures in this war can be linked to America's lack of commitment, priority and moral courage in this war effort. . . . America has not been fully committed to win this war."

He says leaving Iraq is not an option, and he has no doubt about the threat: "As a nation we must recognize that the enemy we face is committed to destroying our way of life."

In sum, what Gen. Sanchez is describing here is a nation that is at risk and is in a state of disunity. Does disunity matter? He is saying that in war, it does.

In politics, a degree of disunity is normal. But in our time, partisan disunity has become the norm. The purpose of politics now is to thwart, to stop.

We may have underestimated how corrosive our disunity has been on the troops in Iraq, and how deeply it has damaged us.

Those of us in politics--politicians, reporters, bureaucrats--are largely inured to all this, and we seem to have assumed that the system shares our infinite capacity for antipathy and tumult. But is this occupational toughness natural to politics, or is it cynicism? I don't think the soldiers or the American people see the difference.

Arguably it is the proper role of politics to intervene, to question. But during Vietnam and again now, we haven't been able to avoid simultaneously putting troops on the battlefield while fighting bitterly amongst ourselves at home for the length of the war.

The U.S. officer corps is aware of this. While no one is talking about a stab in the back, they may conclude that the home front and its institutions are unable to, or will not, protect their back.

One may ask: Will we ever want to do this again? Are we able to undertake military missions that prove difficult? Or is the projection of U.S. military power into the world an idea that now irreparably divides the American people? Before November 2008, we had better have some answers, from our presidential candidates and from ourselves.

Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page

[quote=steve k;238901One may ask: Will we ever want to do this again? Are we able to undertake military missions that prove difficult? Or is the projection of U.S. military power into the world an idea that now irreparably divides the American people?[/QUOTE]

It depends. I think the preemptive strike philosophy is not popular with the American public in general, but there certainly is a segment that believes in it.

If we are going to commit troops to war, then the cause must have a much greater level of support than any preemptive strike is likely to enjoy.

The war against terror in Afghanistan drew huge support, it is the Iraq debacle that has fractured us.

I think that if the Iraqi War had been waged properly from the outset (what's happening now notwithstanding) then there would have been greater support. As it is, this has taken longer than WWII. We Americans like things quickly. It's part of our society. We are spoiled in that sense. We don't like things dragged out but most of all we don't like losing or the perception of losing.

I do believe in pre-emptive strikes when necessary. I still believe going into Iraq was the right thing to do. However, 20/20 being what it is had I known the way it would have been fought I never would have gone for it. If you are going to fight then you fight to win.

Another News Corp. opinion piece? what a surprise. I do realize the WSJ has always been conservative, but now with Murdoch at the helm it should eventually reach a new low. As for the editorial, It should be obvious, by now, that the Iraq war was started on a faulty premise. On that faulty premise, the US launched a preemptive strike on a sovereign nation. That strike has resulted in the deaths of almost 4000 Americans and the maiming of thousands more. In my opinion, like Vietnam, it will color the way wars are fought, and how the public feels about them for years to come.

If this poster majority of downloads are Murdoch propaganda Steve k may be a low level employee of News Corporation.

I was a moderator on a forum that had a member whose majority of posts were Murdoch publications. We came to find out he was a low level employee paid to copy and paste these all over the internet political forums. I just looked at the last 50 posts of this character Steve k. it may be the same poster. That poster's name was David j. He mixed them up a bit with other right blogs and a few comments.

We did not ban him . In fact it became funny. Rarely did anyone read his multiple daily copy and paste so it kept David j. busy and gave us a good laugh. I am suspicious now it is the same poster after reviewing posts. Those types are harmless on a forum and rarely disrupt or have any impact and it gives someone an entry level job.

I agree that must have been funny. In your world i'm sure lots of things are funny. First off, this is the first time I've seen or read any of your views or posts you so maybe you ought to at least sign up and become a member. Secondly, do you really think I give a shit about what you consider to be "legitimite" sources of news? Who the fuck are you, anyway?

Finally, all of the paranoia about Murdoch is enough to make one with any ounce of realism laugh. I didn't tell him to buy the WSJ. I was posting articles before he bought them. I didn't tell him to buy the NY Post. I was reading them before he bought them. I actually remember the last issue the Post had published before they were supposed to go under. However, if it were up to you, you would limit and stifle and restrict free speech to the few sources that you feel are legit so don't try and lecture me about "fiarnesss" because it's obvious you don't practice it and you don't know dick about it. Go back to the "Huffington Post", MediaMatters & MoveOn.Org groups that will actually take your nonsense seriously. When/if you grow up and decide to engage me in frank discussion of ideas then I'll talk to you. But this other peripherial (sp.) crap is just that. Crap.

Maybe you ought to read the content of the article, Upton. Where in it is the article kissing the ass of Bush? Where in it is the article or the General saying what a great move this war really was? You really ought to get out of your own way. Your obsession with Murdoch is the wrong obsession you should be having. If you want to live in a world where left-wing politics and voices are aired then you might want to consider Cuba, Venezuela or another Socialist and press limiting country that may suit your your wishes. Your assertations about "premption" and "faulty premis" are your opinions which have been given 4 yearas to materialize. Your simplicity in discussing this event is staggering.

Lets see, first you tell Argyle to return to the Huffington Post, Media Matters, or MoveOn. Then you tell me to consider Cuba or Venezuela, and you accuse me of "simplicity"? Now, that really is staggering. As for the editorial, to me, the crux was a question of the country coming together for future wars, the words of Sanchez were just a preamble. I'm saying, the foolish venture into Iraq has poisoned the well for years to come. The faulty premise of WMD is not just opinion, it's fact, as is the preemptive strike. Are you so caught up in Murdoch world that you still don't know the difference?

I definitely do not believe in preemptive strikes but with that said Steve I agree that in all reality whether those against the war or not would have begrudgingly accepted the situation if the war where prosecuted correctly & the way the administration especially as Rumsfeld said 6 months to a year suggested.

It's a dead horse to rehash all the reasons why it has been a failed prosecution. The ex-generals from early on articulated that from their experience.

The rather sad & frightening truth is we do not have a clear idea how to continue forward with such a dysfunctional state we are in with a rapidly disintegrating Iraq & in our country we are both looking back & in the present but not very willing to look hard at visualizing & articulating a realistic future for this broken nation that we now occupy.

It's looking like things are potential going to go from bad to worse if Turkey decides to prosecute an invasion of Northern Iraq. The unintended consequences of that are truly scary.

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

I agree with nearly all that you said.